Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States of America

STATUS OF THE CASE

A. Trial for defendant XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX is set for
November 5, 1991, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Terry J.
Hatter, Jr., United States District Judge.

B. Estimated time for trial is 3 days.

C. The defendant is not in custody.

D. Trial by jury has not been waived.

E. An interpreter will not be required.

F. The government expects to call approximately ten to
twelve witnesses.

G. The Indictment is in 36 counts.

II

APPLICABLE STATUTES

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2314, provides in
pertinent part as follows:

Whoever, with unlawful or fraudulent intent, transportsin
interstate or foreign commerce any falsely made, forged,altered, or
counterfeited securities or tax stamps, knowingthe same to have
been falsely made, forged altered orcounterfeited . . . [s]hall be
fined not more than $10,000 orimprisoned not more than ten years,
or both.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 513(a), provides in
pertinent part as follows:

Whoever makes, utters or possesses a
counterfeitedsecurity of a State or a political subdivision thereof
or ofan organization . . . with intent to deceive another
person,organization, or government shall be fined not more
than$250,000 or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 513(c) contains the
following definitions to be applied to section (a) above:

(1) the term counterfeited means a document thatpurports
to be genuine but is not because it has been falselymade or
manufactured in its entirety . . .

(3) the term "security" means-

(5) the term "State" includes a State of the
UnitedStates . . .

Title 15, United States Code, Section 1984, provides in
pertinent part as follows:

No person shall disconnect, reset, or alter or cause tobe
disconnected, reset, or altered, the odometer of any motorvehicle
with intent to change the number of miles indicatedthereon.

Title 15, United States Code, Section 1990c provides that one
who knowingly and willfully violates the above provision "shall be
fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both."

III

FACTS

From October, 1988 through August, 1989, XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX
bought 18 late-model, high-mileage pick-up trucks, 16 through a
wholesale dealer's auto auction in Albuquerque, New Mexico and two
from XXX Ford in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. XXXXXXX had the
odometers on each of the 18 trucks rolled back, sometimes in excess
of 50,000 miles. XXXXXXXX then sold each of these 18 trucks to XXX
Ford in Norwalk, California which, in turn, sold most to lower
middle-class immigrant laborers in the Norwalk area. By having the
odometers on the trucks rolled back, XXXXXXXX was able to sell each
truck for thousands of dollars more than he bought it.

When buying these trucks, XXXXXXXX used his own name claiming
to represent XXX Motors, a licensed California dealership run by
XXX. XXXXXXXX was authorized by the auction to buy and sell cars
on behalf of XXX Motors as their sole representative. XXXXXXXX
sold all 18 trucks operating under the business name Happy Motors.
In between his purchase and sale of the trucks, XXXXXXXX created
phony transactions between fictitious companies, erased mileage
figures from titles and otherwise manipulated paperwork eventually
submitted to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), all
in an effort to hide his odometer fraud. XXXXXXXX's scheme is best
illustrated by the following transactions, which form the basis for
counts 12 and 30 of the indictment. On March 9, 1989, XXXXXXXX
bought a 1986 Ford F-150 pick-up truck from the Ford Motor Credit
Company. The purchase was made through the XXX Auto Auction with
XXXXXXXX operating as a representative for XXX Motors of Glendora,
California. He paid the auction $4585 for the truck, which had
80474 miles on it at the time he bought it. To make the purchase,
he used a draft drawn on his account at a bank in Henning,
Minnesota. When the auction's bank presented the draft to his
bank, the bank debited his account $4595 (purchase price plus the
price of a cashier's check) and forwarded a cashier's check to the
auction's bank. The withdrawal from XXXXXXXX's account was dated
April 13th; the auction's check was deposited soon thereafter.

On March 14, 1989, this truck along with others purchased by
XXXXXXXX was transported by car carrier to Southern California and
dropped off at the XXX Motors lot in XXX. From there it was
eventually taken to XXX Ford in Norwalk, California and sold by
XXXXXXXX operating under the fictitious business name of XXX
Motors. XXXXXXXX sold the truck for $9300. A check from XXX Ford
in that amount dated April 11th was deposited in XXXXXXXX's
Minnesota account soon thereafter. At the time XXXXXXXX sold it,
the truck had 48,551 miles on the odometer. In this condition, XXX
Ford sold the pick-up to XXX for $12,999 under an installment
contract.

When XXXXXXXX purchased the truck through the auction, he was
given a certificate of title along with other ownership documents
showing the transfer of ownership from Ford Motor Credit Company
through the auction to XXX Motors. After the truck entered the
state of California, XXXXXXXX employed XXX to "verify" it--a
procedure required by state law when a vehicle is brought into the
state that involves checking the vehicle identification number and
mileage for accuracy--and apply for a new California title and
registration. As part of this procedure, XXXXXXXX provided XXX
with the title he received at the auction but failed to provide the
other ownership documents which showed that the truck had been
transferred from Ford Motor Company to Sierra Motors through the
auction. Instead, he provided XXX with a phony transfer of title
indicating that Ford Motor Credit Company sold the truck to a
fictitious entity named Coast Car Rental located at P.O. Box 9111,
Portland, Oregon. This document along with XXX'S verification
form, both showing the new low mileage, were submitted to DMV.
Within approximately 48 hours, XXXXXXXX received a new certificate
of title showing that the car was now owned by XXX Car Rental. The
odometer rollback was concealed because no mileage figure and no
previous owners appeared on this new title.

After receiving the new title but before selling the truck to
XXX Ford, XXXXXXXX created another bogus transaction by filling out
a bill of sale purporting to show that the car was sold by XXX Car
Rental to XXX Motors, another fictitious entity. When XXX sold the
car to Mr. XXX, this bill of sale was also submitted to DMV. By
the time Mr. XXX received the car, then, XXXXXXXX had created
paperwork which made it appear as if the truck had been transferred
from Ford Motor Credit Company to XXX Car Rental to XXX Motors to
XXX Ford. Gone from the chain of ownership was XXX Motors, a real
business licensed by the state of California. Also missing was any
evidence that the truck had been sold through the New Mexico
auction, a potential source of records showing the true high
mileage.

With slight variations from vehicle to vehicle, XXXXXXXX
followed the pattern described above for each of the 18 vehicles
named in the indictment. In short, for each vehicle he bought at
high mileage, sold at low mileage and attempted to hide his
fraudulent scheme by replacing real businesses and people in the
ownership chain with fictitious names and entities.

IV

PERTINENT LAW

A. Title 18, United States Code, Section 2314

(Transportation of Altered Securities)

1. Essential Elements

The essential elements of transportation of altered securities
are: (1) that the securities at issue were falsely made, forged,
altered, or counterfeited; (2) that the defendant transported the
securities in interstate commerce, or caused them to be so
transported; (3) that the defendant knew the securities were
falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited; and (4) the
defendant acted with fraudulent or unlawful intent.

3. Alterations, in this case erasures, need not render
securities invalid in order for the securities to be considered
altered under 18 U.S.C. {2314. United States v. Cotoia, 785
F.2d 497, 501 (4th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v.
Bowers, 739 F.2d 1050, 1057 (6th Cir.))

4. Proof that securities were altered before being taken
across state lines is not necessary so long as it is established
that the defendant's transportation of altered securities within
state was a continuation of the movement that began out of the
state. McElroy v. United States, 455 U.S. 642, 659
(1982).

B. Title 18, United States Code, Section 513

(Possession of Forged Securities of States)

1. Essential Elements

The essential elements of possession of forged securities of
states are: (1) that the security was counterfeited or forged;
(2) that the defendant made, uttered or possessed the security; (3)
that the defendant knew the security was counterfeited or forged;
and (4) that the defendant acted with fraudulent or unlawful intent
to deceive another person, organization or government.

2. State title certificates that were "washed" were
counterfeited under 18 U.S.C. {513. U.S. v Davis 888 F2d
283, 285

C. Title 15, United States Code, Section 1984

(Odometer Tampering)

1. Essential Elements

The essential elements of odometer tampering are: (1) the
defendant caused the odometer of a motor vehicle to be
disconnected, reset or altered; and (2) that the defendant
intended to change the mileage indicated on any odometer he caused
to be disconnected, reset or altered.

2. Weight and Sufficiency

Evidence that the defendant purchased automobiles and kept
them in his possession and control until the date on which the
altered odometers were observed is sufficient to sustain a
conviction under the odometer tampering statute. United States
v. Brandon, 599 F.2d 112, 113 (6th Cir. 1979) cert.
denied, 444 U.S. 837. The government need not identify the
person or persons who actually disconnected, reset or altered the
odometers in order to gain a conviction under this statute.
United
States v. Hugh Chalmers Chevrolet-Toyota, Inc., 800 F.2d 737,
738
(8th Cir. 1986)

D. Evidentiary Issues At Trial

1. Records of Regularly Conducted Activity:

Federal Rule of Evidence, 803(6). Custodian or other
qualified witness referred to in the rule need not be an employee
of the business that has custody of the document or the business
that generated the document at the time of its making. United
States v. Smith, 609 F.2d 1294, 1301 (9th Cir. 1979); United
States v. Hines, 564 F.2d 925, 928 (10th Cir. 1977),
cert.denied, 434 U.S. 1022 (1978); Itel Capital
Corp. v. Cups Coal Co., Inc., 707 F.2d 1253, 1259 (11th Cir.
1983); United States v. Veytia-Bravo, 603 F.2d 1187, 1191
(5th Cir. 1979), cert.denied, 444 U.S. 1024
(1980).

3. Expert Testimony on Handwriting: Federal Rules
of Evidence, 702, 703 and 901.A signed writing can be
authenticated by the testimony of an expert witness who has
compared the handwriting with the handwriting on a specimen
admitted for comparison purposes. Robles v. United States,
279 F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1960), cert.denied, 365 U.S.
836, reh.denied, 365 U.S. 890 (1961).

4. Self-Authentication: Federal Rule of
Evidence, 902(1). Documents bearing a seal of any State and a
signature purporting to be an attestation or execution are
admissible without extrinsic evidence of authenticity.

5. Admissibility of Duplicates: Federal Rule of
Evidence, 1003. A duplicate is admissible to the same extent
as an original absent a real question about the authenticity of the
original or other circumstances making it unfair to admit the
duplicate instead of the original.